Noble Genocide

Users who are viewing this thread

Gandamula

Sergeant at Arms
What about remove the death and set a KO for several weeks or months? For the companions to, they could lose a arm or a leg, lose perks and attributes but not die.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
The whole death in combat feature is utter failure. It doesn't work well with basic game mechanics, which is a reason pervious MB game did not have it and it worked well.
Fact that % chance have to be tweaked down to 2% and it still might not be enough to not brake the game begs a question -why have it in the first place?

At last make "death by old age only" an option for the player so we can play with whole dynastic part of the game without whole caldaria changing it's population of lords and kings every 5 years.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Fact that % chance have to be tweaked down to 2% and it still might not be enough to not brake the game begs a question -why have it in the first place?
Because it was requested quite frequently and allows people to finally kill that dude who keeps raiding their villages or take over an existing faction without waiting forever and a day for any non-Lucon ruler to die.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Because it was requested quite frequently and allows people to finally kill that dude who keeps raiding their villages or take over an existing faction without waiting forever and a day for any non-Lucon ruler to die.

I didn't see it been requested frequently and I am playing MB since original one, including lurking around TW forum here. Of course I might have not payed attention, since for me it was not an issue.

Anyway, in the game were battles happen hyper unrealistically often and where fatalities and casualties in those battles are hyper unrealistically high and where at the same time characters are expected to have realistic life expectancies, introducing death in battle will cause major problems. That should have been apparent since the beginning. It was to me anyway.

I am not per see against trying it as a concept in the game, but so far devs clearly did not find a mechanic that would somehow make it work. Reducing chance to 2% is ridiculous. Players who wanted to exterminate their foes in battles won't get what they wanted and rest of the players will be left to deal with RNG so low that it will feel unfair and arbitrary every time it will trigger.

If you want to merge hyper intensive combat in a game with mortality, you need to do it through some mechanic that is more then just % dice that player have no control over. For example in Kenshi when you are struck down, you don't get killed outright. You get bleeding and you enter "recovery coma". At that point character, NPCs including can either bleed to death or get medical first aid. That's something player, and even NPCs have control about, since NPCs are programed to give first aid to allied characters, they can even carry such disabled character to bed to speed up healing. That's example of a good design of combat mortality in a computer game. Now that's not example that can be used in MB, I am just giving it as a demonstration of how good mechanic should look like. Yes characters can get killed in combat. But they have fair amount of control over it. Again, NPC characters including. Death itself isn't that random.

MB approach was that essential character could not die, they only got wounded on been struck down in combat. That too is an example of a good mechanic and it worked well in pervious MBs. If devs want to change that and introduce fatalities to the combat for essential characters, they should figure out something better then 2% chance. That's a bad design in my opinion.
 
There is a compromise idea between death in battle and natural deaths only.
If someone is struck down in battle, there could be a % chance for a serious wound, but never death. Serious wounds lower life expectancy, so that a character would die of "natural" death earlier. It's similar to having several lives per NPC that can get used up by getting knocked out (and by aging).
The benefit of this over deaths in battle is that NPC deaths are more predictable - you know which ones are at most risk and maybe you would do something about it, one way or another.
 

BigFat

Regular
I am not per see against trying it as a concept in the game, but so far devs clearly did not find a mechanic that would somehow make it work. Reducing chance to 2% is ridiculous. Players who wanted to exterminate their foes in battles won't get what they wanted and rest of the players will be left to deal with RNG so low that it will feel unfair and arbitrary every time it will trigger.
Something to keep in mind is that the 2% hasn't been implemented yet and may well see adjustments, especially since it will be for AI vs AI battles too. It seems like a very small number because all deaths are only through player involvement at the moment, with all AI battles included it may even out to their previously stated goal of "about 5 deaths in battle per year".
I think the bigger issue with death in battle right now is that it takes way longer for new lords to grow up than it does to wipe them all out. This could be mitigated a little by having more children at the start who will become adults in a few years. As it stands, there are a few existing children, then very few for 18 years until the wave of post-start births hits adulthood. I think it would really help to have shorter seasons so they come of age quicker as well, or even allow them to be usable at 16.
As for Kenshi and the other comments, I think it's fine in those games but I'm not interested in their implementation in this one. The option to turn off death and play like older M&B is there, whereas I do enjoy seeing an irritating lord bite it or feel more protective over ones I like. Once they get the rates down, I really hope they put a bit more (any?) effort into giving lords more personality so you feel it more when they die.
 

WeiKaiXuan

Recruit
Gotta agree with the OP. It's too high. 2% seems too low though from the earlier beta play I had. I'm still trying to figure out why on Earth did they remove the negative relationship from deaths you cause to other lords via battle! That was a cool feature. Maybe instead of -10, it could have been -5, but still.... to remove it all made the game less interesting from a drama standpoint.
 

Galvar

Veteran
WBWF&SVC
There is a plan to reduce the death chances. The deaths from automatic battles will be enabled and the overall death chance will be reduced by about 80% as well. Also, the medicine will affect the life and death of heroes a lot more so that a 0 medicine and a 250 medicine doctor will have very different outcomes when stabilizing wounded heroes.(similar to wounded troops).
It's been an issue for a very long time. Are there some technical issues with implementing it properly, are you tinkering with exact values for balance or is it pending for some other changes?

To me this is even more important than that big terrain update and I've been putting off my next serious playthrough for over half a year, waiting for it to get fixed. If someone lets us know that it's something that won't get fixed until next year, I may finally relent and just play with modded disabled deaths. Otherwise I'll just keep on waiting and replying whenever I find a topic like this, I guess.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
To me this is even more important than the dynamic terrain update and I've been putting off my next serious playthrough for over half a year, waiting for it to get fixed. If someone lets us know that it's something that won't get fixed until next year, I may finally relent and just play with modded disabled deaths. Otherwise I'll just keep on waiting and replying whenever I find a topic like this, I guess.
Why not just turn off death in battle in the difficulty settings?
 

Galvar

Veteran
WBWF&SVC
Why not just turn off death in battle in the difficulty settings?
Because dynastic stuff is a big part of the game and this setting just turns it off.

Modding death out of battles lets the dynastic side of the game stay, but no deaths whatsoever brings its own issues to simulation health (but it's still better than vanilla death rates).
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Because dynastic stuff is a big part of the game and this setting just turns it off.
I was under the impression that turning off the setting Enable Birth and Death did that but only turning off death in battle allowed for children to be born.

Was that mistaken?
 

Galvar

Veteran
WBWF&SVC
I was under the impression that turning off the setting Enable Birth and Death did that but only turning off death in battle allowed for children to be born.

Was that mistaken?
You're probably thinking about the setting that is related only to your clan members chance of death. And I'm talking about death related to AI lords as well.
 
Last edited:

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
@SadShogun ,

Very much needed and important change! The rate of death is too high right now plus it should be extrapolated to nonplayer's battles. Big bravo Monsieur! 👏
Also, the medicine will affect the life and death of heroes a lot more so that a 0 medicine and a 250 medicine doctor will have very different outcomes when stabilizing wounded heroes.(similar to wounded troops).
Wait, you mean this can affect the death ratio in battle even further? So with 0 medicine, you will use a standard death ratio of e.g. 2% (as baseline) but the higher you go with medicine perks it will be further lowered? So basically it would be further impossible (or nearly) to lose your mates, under your command, during the battle, right? Or am I getting it wrong?
 

murtega

Knight
Out of curiosity, is death chance formula in any form connected to how many NPCs are present in battle? I'd battle 100 NPC parties in a row one on one, none of them die but then I'd join a big field battle and bang, 2-3 of them die, ironically most of them my allies. Feels like the game is cheating.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Out of curiosity, is death chance formula in any form connected to how many NPCs are present in battle? I'd battle 100 NPC parties in a row one on one, none of them die but then I'd join a big field battle and bang, 2-3 of them die, ironically most of them my allies. Feels like the game is cheating.
It isn't. It is just a flat chance. I thought it had actually been nerfed to 2% a few patches ago and complained about it but it turned out it wasn't nerfed at all. It was just luck that I went through something like 30 downed lords without one of them dying.
 
I didn't see it been requested frequently and I am playing MB since original one, including lurking around TW forum here. Of course I might have not payed attention, since for me it was not an issue.

Anyway, in the game were battles happen hyper unrealistically often and where fatalities and casualties in those battles are hyper unrealistically high and where at the same time characters are expected to have realistic life expectancies, introducing death in battle will cause major problems. That should have been apparent since the beginning. It was to me anyway.

I am not per see against trying it as a concept in the game, but so far devs clearly did not find a mechanic that would somehow make it work. Reducing chance to 2% is ridiculous. Players who wanted to exterminate their foes in battles won't get what they wanted and rest of the players will be left to deal with RNG so low that it will feel unfair and arbitrary every time it will trigger.

If you want to merge hyper intensive combat in a game with mortality, you need to do it through some mechanic that is more then just % dice that player have no control over. For example in Kenshi when you are struck down, you don't get killed outright. You get bleeding and you enter "recovery coma". At that point character, NPCs including can either bleed to death or get medical first aid. That's something player, and even NPCs have control about, since NPCs are programed to give first aid to allied characters, they can even carry such disabled character to bed to speed up healing. That's example of a good design of combat mortality in a computer game. Now that's not example that can be used in MB, I am just giving it as a demonstration of how good mechanic should look like. Yes characters can get killed in combat. But they have fair amount of control over it. Again, NPC characters including. Death itself isn't that random.

MB approach was that essential character could not die, they only got wounded on been struck down in combat. That too is an example of a good mechanic and it worked well in pervious MBs. If devs want to change that and introduce fatalities to the combat for essential characters, they should figure out something better then 2% chance. That's a bad design in my opinion.
This.

One way to cope with super high frequency of battles and casualities would be to increase speed of gaining skills and aging, that way there could be legit dynastic play in game (right now you can get from one side of the continent to other side in few days or weeks, so faster aging would actually make sense and dying in battle would not be such a big deal. But that would require more dynastic features and more interaction between NPCs and clans (so more CKII features).
 

Shaxx

Squire
OMG, 2%? That's critically low, why would ever have this feature if lords will be almost immortal again?

Just remember that we had (and maybe still have) a 2% chance of being executed by the AI lord who hates you. Question: how many times have you been executed in all your playthroughs?

@SadShogun please, tell me you won't lower it to this ridiculously low numbers
AI lords will fight hundreds of battles throughout their lives, even at 2% they eventually are likely to all die on the battlefield. Looking at historical examples from our own world for what that is worth this only happened very rarely, mainly because they were usually the most armored, further from the fighting, surrounded by bodyguards and most importantly of all, enemy troops wanted to take heavily armored opponents alive so they could get a good ransom.

You might have seen a few documentaries about X critical battle where X leader was killed, but there is a reason they are critical battles that people made a documentary about and it is because they were exceptional, rare.

You can argue it's a fantasy game but the game heavily draws many prominent designs from historical examples and various periods, Warband as an example drew heavily from the later middle ages and Bannerlord from the early middle ages and even the map is based on Anatolia and so on and so forth.

That's all strict statistic, in fact nobles die very rare in my playthroughs. Even in sieges, where lords die more often, because of their quantity, the death probability is very low - in 4 sieges I played in a row, only 1 lord died (and he was already at the brink of the death anyway - 56 y.o.).

So, I am against 2% probability for lord to die in battle. It will ruin the whole death feature.
The death probability is 10%, that is quite high when you think of how many battles they will be involved in once it gets brought to to AI vs AI, your first hand experiences are anecdotal. It will be a bloodbath, whole clans will die out very quickly.
 

Lesbosisles

Knight
The death probability is 10%, that is quite high when you think of how many battles they will be involved in once it gets brought to to AI vs AI, your first hand experiences are anecdotal. It will be a bloodbath, whole clans will die out very quickly.
You've missed the point where I was saying that the death chance should be reduced when AI vs AI is implemented, but not to 2% for all the saint. With that rate it'll be hardly a difference playing Warband or Bannerlord.
 

Slithy

Regular
You've missed the point where I was saying that the death chance should be reduced when AI vs AI is implemented, but not to 2% for all the saint. With that rate it'll be hardly a difference playing Warband or Bannerlord.
I think you may be underestimating the impact of continuously rolling a 2% chance.
 
Top Bottom